/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16084689]

Alright, I'm convinced from a purely economic standpoint by this book(No cultural arguments! I'm against open borders, this is purely talking about the economics!!).
Let's see some basic rules of economics, supply & demand, labour supply:
-Consumers, demand, go up, supply must go up.
-This creates new jobs for the immigrants, as well as other growth, leading to constant job growth.
-A lot more money circulating throughout the economy, obviously a good thing.
-Leads to higher standard of living for everyone.
Now the common argument "decreases wages" or whatever, no it doesn't. Wages only decrease when there's an oversupply of labour, and if you see above there won't be an oversupply of labour, especially considering people will move about due to open borders, as well as immigrants moving to work then moving back etc.

Again, this book just convinced me ECONOMICALLY! I'm against open borders hell I think we need less immigration overall but what's the economic, not cultural, case against open borders?

[Anonymous No.16084697]

>>/lit/image/LKLsGwHl-CGN4NRcG_7IWQ

[Anonymous No.16084700]

>>16084689
yes the economy works great when you discard all moral considerations, this has been known for a long time

[Anonymous No.16084713]

>>16084689
there isn't one or else it wouldn't happen. the nash equilibrium leads to it: individual agents all have their own rational reasons to allow or push for open borders, and the reasons to pushback are mostly non-economic or mis-guided protectivist.

[Anonymous No.16084727]

>>16084697
This

[Anonymous No.16084758]

Worst book I have ever read and I read thousands of comic books a year. That smug face the artist self inserted on himself had me seething for weeks.

[Anonymous No.16084769]

>>16084689
Lolbertarian bugmanship is the most cringe ideology ever conceived.

[Anonymous No.16084789]

>>16084689
Get the second edition. The cover is way better.

[Anonymous No.16084798]

>>16084689
Then you're a retard, we would have infinite job growth (without any immigrants) if what you suggest is true.
You also seem to believe that adjustments in markets take place instantly, or that immigrants would be spread evenly (or perhaps even optimally!), which is also simply untrue.
Thirdly, both you and the authors of that book seem to think that diminishing returns is a concept that has no basis in reality, I think you would find out pretty quickly that there is a limit on how many low/non-skill jobs there is a need for (how many people do you need mowing lawns, hauling garbage, or working a drive-thru?).
And of course, you and the authors seem to believe that GDP and culture are unrelated, which could not be further from the truth.

[Anonymous No.16084805]

>>16084758
It's is by far my favorite comic to spoof.

[Anonymous No.16084848]

>>16084689
The economic models that talk about immigration sparking increased wages and a higher living standard don’t account for massive social programs like Social Security, Universal Healthcare and Subsidized Higher Education. Immigrants take significantly higher amounts out of these programs than they contribute.
Politicians also deliberately neglect to mention that the positive effects are in the Long-Run, so most people nervous about the immediate effects of mass immigration probably should be, even if the best case scenario works out.

An increased market for consumer goods also won’t have the impact that they’re telling you. Remember in like 2006, before everyone had bigger problems to worry about, how people were saying China was taking over the country because when you walked into Walmart everything was made in China? Well it wasn’t a big deal at the time because you only spend between 20%-30% of your life time earnings on the kind of consumer goods you typically get in Walmart. The rest is spend on Housing, Education and Healthcare.
So why would you consider getting cheap consumer goods (on which you only spend about 20%-30% of your money) a good tradeoff for more expensive Housing, Healthcare and Education (where you spend about 70%-80% of your money).

We have also gotten a pretty good crash course over the last 30 years in why you shouldn’t trust American corporations to pass on the profits from sales increases on to you. The evidence shows that workers pocket less of the benefits from increased productivity than ever.

Immigration arguments made a lot more sense when they appealed to voter’s altruism and principles. This obfuscating the facts, “you’re voting against your best interests!” mentality and trying to sell it like an idea that has literally zero down sides and the only thing holding us back is racism makes me sick.

[Anonymous No.16084876]

>>16084689
That cover is actually a perfect representation. It's crowded, no breathing room, and less than 1 in 10 people are white.

[Anonymous No.16084919]

>>16084848
He accounts for social programs by suggesting that we ought to simply exclude immigrants from these programs or charge them extra in taxes to pay for them.

[Anonymous No.16084922]

>>16084876
>>16084689
Also all the smiles are insincere, forced and nervous.

None of those people are truly happy.

[Anonymous No.16084943]

>>16084689
Economically it doesn't make sense because public property is just stolen private property, and private property isn't open by default. A store is open, but only to whom the owner decides to. Your house is open, but only to guests that you find value in.

Therefore open borders means a politician takes your property and uses it for their interest. Their major interest is increasing their revenue by raising taxes, so the people they want in are people who will one way or another trigger changes towards a bigger State.

[Anonymous No.16085011]

>>16084919
You can’t. Civil Rights Legislation (as interpreted by the courts) will not let you, even through the democratic process.
For instance in a 1994 referendum called Prop 187, California voted overwhelmingly to deny Welfare payments to illegal immigrants but a district court overturned the results on the rationale that it equated to setting immigration policy.

[Anonymous No.16085034]

>>16084689
Why does he assume that there will be equal movement of people from one area to another as a guard against wage depression?

What exactly tells him that just as many people will move from, say, Nigeria to the US as they will from the US to Nigeria? That seems to be quite a big assumption.

Immigrants usually move back because they're forced to on seasonal visas. If they have the opportunity to pack up and move with their entire family permanently, they will.

Also>>16084798

And we do this like every two weeks with the same retards making the same hypothetical arguments that rely on utopian conditions and then being blown out by the sheer idiocy or improbability (or, indeed the nuance behind) the "benefit" immigrants bring.

[Anonymous No.16085049]

>>16084689
It just boils down to "it is economically good to increase the size of the population", which should be intuitively obvious, but in the 60s the ruling class decided that they needed to promote population control because they thought population growth would turn us Communist.

[Anonymous No.16085063]

>>16085049
That only makes sense if you definition of “economically good” is just “will raise gdp”. The issue boils down to quality of life and wages for the populace; particularly the pre-immigration populace

[Anonymous No.16085067]

>>16085034
As an addendum the type of job matters. Immigrants may "create" jobs but if they're creating shit agriculture or service economy jobs then how are the bulk of people in a country benefitting?

Evidently economies can function and prosper without immigration, the US did for most of its existence when immigration was limited to mostly Europe and even then was subject to quotas and restrictions.

The opening up of immigration to the US hasn't exactly made things any better for most US workers as their purchasing power hasn't budged in 40 years. Yes, there are other things associated with that but I doubt the guys pushing for open borders are against globalization, de-unionization, and financialization.

[Anonymous No.16085076]

>>16084919
>we ought to simply exclude immigrants from these programs
How about their 15 children that make use of the 14th Amendment?

[Anonymous No.16085089]

>>16085049
> but in the 60s the ruling class decided that they needed to promote population control

Hart-Cellar Immigration reform tore down immigration quotas (the system that had been running since 1924) in 1965 so you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about

[Anonymous No.16085094]

>>16085049
>in the 60s the ruling class decided that they needed to promote population control because
They were making room for immigrants.

[Anonymous No.16085099]

>>16085063
You could also increase the size of the population with more children per woman, which the other problems.

[Anonymous No.16085100]

>>16084798
Western capitalcuck '''''economists''''' have always lived in fantasy land.

[Anonymous No.16085118]

>>16085089
>Hart-Cellar Immigration reform tore down immigration quotas (the system that had been running since 1924) in 1965 so you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about
Around that time all the Foundations were shilling population control, especially in the Third World but also at home. Relaxation on immigration controls was also seen as part of a wider Civil Rights effort towards proving that America was now definitively Not Racist.

>>16085094
They also thought it would improve relations with the Third World by reassuring them that we weren't racist. American government officials are stupider than you can imagine.

[Anonymous No.16085122]

>>16084689
Go back to /co/

[Anonymous No.16085129]

Refuted. Wienersmith got pretty pissed when I posted this on his page.
>>16084789
Kek

[Anonymous No.16085131]

>>16084848
>The economic models that talk about immigration sparking increased wages and a higher living standard don’t account for massive social programs like Social Security, Universal Healthcare and Subsidized Higher Education. Immigrants take significantly higher amounts out of these programs than they contribute.
This fact alone proves the correctness of Marxist socialism. Unfortunately the populist right are too dumb to understand why.

[Anonymous No.16085133]

>>16085118
>American government officials are stupider than you can imagine.
They didn't do it because they gave a shit about the third world's opinions, they did it because it directly benefited the capitalist class who got cheaper labor, and the Democrats, who got an endless supply of voters.

[Anonymous No.16085143]

His argument against high trust societies is literally insane. Fuck this propagandizing J*w, immigration only benefits corporations that want exponential and rampant profits that fuck up regular people and the environment instead of sustainable growth that benefits everyone.

[Anonymous No.16085145]

>>16085131
do tell

[Anonymous No.16085149]

>>16085129
I'm not a libertarian, not even a paleolibertarian, and I disagree with him on trade, but God, Hoppe is based.

[Anonymous No.16085166]

>>16085118
>it would improve relations with the Third World by reassuring them that we weren't racist
I believe this to be propaganda for internal consumption.

[Anonymous No.16085171]

>>16085143
What does he say? How does he do it?

[Anonymous No.16085180]

>>16085149
Pretty much same and yeah he is.

[Anonymous No.16085212]

>>16085131
The current wave of "Marxists" that would take the reins of an implementation of Marxism are fully in favor of transferring wealth from host population groups to immigrants.

[Anonymous No.16085216]

>>16085011
In many ways the problem is lack of repatriation, not immigration. It's not as if a reversal of globalization will be tolerated, but decoupling immigration from the welfare state and political rights would be an improvement. The company hiring a guest worker needs to be responsible for all the fees they owe to the social system like medical and legal fees.

[Anonymous No.16085217]

>>16085131
I remember some left-populist published an article hitting right populists and basically repeated corporate propaganda about immigration.

[Anonymous No.16085225]

>>16085131
What makes you think these current Trustafarian Marxists wouldn't shill for gibs for immigrants?

[Anonymous No.16085230]

>>16085171
Not him, but there is a page from the comic where he states that too much trust is bad. He literally says that the exact point of the right amount of trust is when credit cards work. I will try to find it.

[Anonymous No.16085238]

>>16085212
>>16085217
>>16085225
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.16085248]

>>16085238
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.16085250]

>>16085238
Yeah these neomarxist scum are cringe and deserve free® helicopter rides

[Anonymous No.16085251]

>>16085145
Ask yourself why the capital class is always in favor of more immigration from poor countries, regardless of increased social safety net costs. It has nothing to do with cultural enrichment.

[Anonymous No.16085308]

>>16085171
I am sorry. I cannot find it. He literally says:
>too much trust bad
>too little trust bad
>credit cards work = perfect amount of trust
It was the most Jewish thing that I have ever read outside of the Talmud.

[Anonymous No.16085313]

>>16084689
The economy relies on a functioning society which centers around trust. the alternative to trust is enforcement and regulation which is costly, inaccurate, and expands with time.
immigrant are implicitly relying on the good faith that white people have. More minority groups and identity politics will destroy trust

For whatever reason high iq technical experts from foreign countries are not the same as their American counterparts. Take Indian or Chinese outsourcing for example. copying works ok, doing new things is impossible, management is awful. This is why they can't just be successful in their own country.

There is some combination of individualism, creativity, risk taking, and responsibility that is mostly found in western culture.

[Anonymous No.16085347]

>>16085313
the following are western ideas other groups do not hold:
- doing a job right is more important than loyalty or friendship. I may have to hire somebody else or look for the best candidate instead of my friend/family.
- problems arise all the time. if something goes wrong it's important to tell my business partners so we can work on the problem together instead of hiding it or assigning blame.
- it's wrong to steal or cheat even if you don't get caught.

[Anonymous No.16085365]

>>16084689
The advantages of immigration are the same as the advantages of high birth rates, and the long-term consequences of immigration are the same as the long-term consequences of high birth rates. In the short term, it's advantageous because larger workforce -> more consumers/more workers -> Lower wages and higher profits -> corporate expansion -> lower prices and more efficient supply chains.

But the advantages of this infusion are temporary because space is finite. As the population goes up, the costs (plural as there are social costs not just monetary ones) of land ownership go up for smaller and smaller plots of land. The consequence is that rents increase, and the same resources have to compete for less land. This is both literal and abstract. Economically, religion is a kind of service, but one which is not easily replaced, and one which people demand very ready access to. There are a limited number of places in which you can place a church, and the presence of a church is exclusive with the presence of a mosque, as well as them being competing for access to the same population, which leads to conflict when they leverage power dynamics. A town with people who have many needs may simply see that one store services an increasingly large variety of products. You don't have to have a separate liquor store each for people who like hard spirits, beer, and wine. But a mosque and a church cannot cohabitate because their services are not only exclusive but also competitive.

There are a number of unspoken assumptions that usually underlie the kind of analysis Cockartisan makes. The most significant and obviously false are these:
1. Culture and religion are skin deep, and people are more interested in mutual utility than either religious proselytization and expansion, or cultural survival. They assume that the differences between the culture of Native Latinos and Americans are so transient that the Latino, presented with the opportunity for great money, will gladly abandon his cultural heritage.
2. Birth rates are a matter of education, and more educated people will always have fewer children. Therefore, space competition isn't really a problem because once everyone is "liberated" from their poverty they will reach population maintenance instead of population expansion.
3. There is a theoretical conception of the ideal neoliberal system, which is truly free and which has an "acceptable" degree of stratification. In this system, everyone can thrive without giving anything up. It also obeys basic economics, so population growth is good, but because it functions for everyone (they'll use these words like "leveling the playing field") it doesn't matter what the source of the growth is because anyone can do anything.
I don't have space to go through all of them but basically anyone but the unitiated can see the ways in which many parts of these axioms draw from power neoliberalism exerts to supplant religious modes of operation with itself.

[Anonymous No.16085423]

>>16085171
... and I finally found it. He totally fails to account for the reasons that people trust each other - the reliability of other members of their society. He only cares about the trust that drives the economic engine and not the society itself.

[Anonymous No.16085478]

>>16085423
That regression curve is just bad. It's an awful regression curve and whoever did it should be ashamed. There is no away that there is a high enough P-value to even make an inference that there's more than a weak correlation between trust and economic prosperity. This entire page is just terrible. Also
>Do these cities really scare you
Has this utterly useless Jew ever BEEN in SF? Its an utter shithole and ridiculously expensive, the entire source of its wealth is rich Silicon Valley managers wanting to hold beach parties on the weekend. Coasts are always wealthier.

[Anonymous No.16085597]

>>16084919
>>16085011
Years ago on his blog, Caplan said that eventually open borders would cause these sorts of social programs to collapse. As a libertarian, he considers this a positive outcome.

[Anonymous No.16085619]

>>16085423
mfw

[Anonymous No.16085639]

>>16085478
>Has this utterly useless Jew ever BEEN in SF?
I don't know about SF, but Caplan has repeatedly written that he doesn't really care about all that other stuff because he's built himself a "bubble" (his term, you can use it to search for more specifics) in which he doesn't have to care about how everyone else is doing.

[Anonymous No.16085645]

>>16085478
>>16085639
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/03/my_beautiful_bu.html

[Anonymous No.16085660]

>>16085645
> I'm going to write about a policy that affects everyone but not care about how everyone else is doing or how that will affect any real people besides myself and the GDP

the fact that so many people eat this up just because Trump doesn't like immigration and gave this book a 5 star review is telling.

[Anonymous No.16085666]

This only benefits a minority economically and causes much deeper problems. You're a cuck and this book is corporate propaganda.

[Anonymous No.16085673]

>>16084689
>Now the common argument "decreases wages" or whatever, no it doesn't.
It blatantly does especially when the immigrants don't care about workers' rights.

[Anonymous No.16085681]

>>16085645
Ah, the classic autistic lolbertarian sociopath. These are the nutjobs preaching the wonders of neoclassical economics and the triumphs of neoliberal capitalism.

[Anonymous No.16087275]

>>16085423
>Highest trust areas are rural white areas
Really makes you think

[Anonymous No.16087293]

>>16084689
>economic """arguments"""
Lmao you mean neoliberal economic models that have no bearing on reality whatsoever, (((Caplan))) makes the case for immigration seem much easier than in really is. He doesn't even view it through the lenses of political economy

[Anonymous No.16087299]

>>16087275
I cannot help but hear the negativity as he lists those areas, though it is not overt.

[Anonymous No.16087338]

>>16085423
lmao

[Anonymous No.16087388]

You would brain drain much of the planet and those who can't afford flying around the world chasing new oppurtunities would be dependent on their relatives sending money home.

[Anonymous No.16087396]

>>16085423
How is the average american not scared shitless from having jews being part of the rulling class, this is also so ridiculous that it almost looks like a parody.

[Anonymous No.16087406]

>>16084689
>-Consumers, demand, go up, supply must go up.
Depends how they make their money. Immigrants from poor countries are a net-negative for most western countries, they rely on handouts, which comes from tax, decreasing the spending power the rich, reducing consumption.
>-This creates new jobs for the immigrants, as well as other growth, leading to constant job growth.
Low quality service jobs which don't provide enough tax to justify their presence. More people need to go into jobs managing the larger, unskilled, unintelligent population (think social workers, lawyers, judges, police, teachers, which means fewer smart people available for actually producing innovation)
>-A lot more money circulating throughout the economy, obviously a good thing.
Not really very obvious. The countries with the highest standard of living have fairly small populations that are on AVERAGE very wealthy.
>-Leads to higher standard of living for everyone.
Seems to me that the standard of living is plummeting, especially as home ownership becomes an unaffordable dream. Major cities are simply abandoned by the native cultures in the west, letting them fall into disrepair.

Look at it this way. In a modern economy most people are dead wood. We no longer need 60% of our population doing manual labour in the fields. However we have a natural inclination, or perhaps moral obligation, to see that those people who cannot improve their skills should have a decent standard of living, hence the minimum wage and benefits. Foreigners who come to compete with our unskilled native workers compete for these limited low wage jobs and take benefits. This to me seems like a betrayal. We do not need affordable nannies and gardeners, house cleaners or street sellers. Our rich and wealthy can get by without these.

[Anonymous No.16087408]

>>16087396
>How is the average american not scared shitless from having jews being part of the rulling class
Because they control our propaganda organ.

[Anonymous No.16087440]

>>16087406
Great takedown. The only pesuasive economic justification for immigration in the information age is short-term cost reduction from labor arbitrage, and only if you assume immigrants aren't net consumers of public services and goods (they are).

[Anonymous No.16087454]

>>16085423
Post the rest of the book. We can't ridicule it based on this alone.

[Anonymous No.16087566]

>>16084689
muh welfare state tho

[I No.16087606]

>>16084689
vagina is also a border.

[Anonymous No.16087618]

Economics is just astrology but believed by rich people that have real world power

[Anonymous No.16087683]

It causes wage suppression.
>look up authors
>caplan is a self-identifying ancap
Yeah, that should be all you need to know. I’m not even a Marxist.
BUT as someone who works in a field rife with immigration labor, I can assure you this is a terrible idea on an economic standpoint alone. These people aren’t used to the quality of life you and I do, because of that they’re willing to work for much lower wages. Due to the lower wages, they drive other people out of work.
>maybe you’re overcharging
Nah nigga. I know my value and my skill
>is your skill is worth that much if some immigrant can come do it?
Yes, my skill allows the functioning of society. And while it’s not difficult, it requires a work ethic and precision. This argument reeks of condescension and lack of respect and perspective.
America is great because you can have a job that immigrants can do and still make a decent living because there’s an unspoken social contract that “yeah. I’m willing to pay more than the bare minimum so that this person can afford a decent life”
Immigration destroys that.
Why do you think Trump won?
Why do you think nearly the entirety of the blue collar working class voted for him?
>hurr durr they stupid
No. It’s in their interest to severely limit immigration so that their lives don’t implode. And if you think that imploding the lives of the lower middle class is anything short of a platonic evil, you’re a fool.

[Anonymous No.16087702]

https://www.econlib.org/you-have-no-right-to-your-culture/

[Anonymous No.16087708]

>>16084689
You're falling for simplistic libertarian propaganda. The quantity of jobs available at anytime is just the result of private business investment or public spending. Private investment fluctuates based on purely emotional factors and you'll find there's a lot of conservatives totally opposed to any public investment since they think it harms private investors.

>Wages only decrease when there's an oversupply of labour
What do you mean by "oversupply"? Think about that for a second. A lot of economists claim that wants are actually unlimited so of course that should mean demand for labour is infinite... but is that true? The reality is aggregate demand is constrained by "budget constraints", people can only spend what they can get their hands on.

>>16084848
>The economic models that talk about immigration sparking increased wages and a higher living standard don’t account for massive social programs like Social Security, Universal Healthcare and Subsidized Higher Education. Immigrants take significantly higher amounts out of these programs than they contribute.
If you abolished taxes to "fund" those programs then what? No one really "contributes" to social security or public healthcare expect people employed by those fields.

>>16087406
>they rely on handouts, which comes from tax
Taxes destroy money. When you tax someone their nominal spending power decreases. Any handout can only come from spending money.

>We no longer need 60% of our population doing manual labour in the fields.
Than what do you need them doing? I's not like most people wouldn't take some servants if they could afford them.

>limited low wage jobs
Why is the supply "limited"? Is there really only that little to be done?

[Anonymous No.16087849]

>>16087454
Anyone got a pdf?

[Anonymous No.16087880]

>>16084689
>(((authorname1))) (((authorname2)))
this has to be bait

[Anonymous No.16087912]

>>16087708
>Why is the supply "limited"? Is there really only that little to be done?
There's a limited number of low-skilled jobs needed to support the part of your population that is actually a net positive. You can get into a circular argument that a bigger low skilled population needs more low skilled workers to sell burritos to itself, but ultimately they're supported by your tax base, which remains the same. If you get rid of benefits and the minimum wage then maybe they'll be economically productive, but the social environment would suck and there will be an exodus of your high skilled population.
Pic related. Hispanics and blacks in America are just one giant burden on the white and asian population. At some point America will have to contend with the fact that to remain solvent they'll have to readjust their standard of living way down in order to make these populations economically worthwhile. Forget $15 minimum wages.

[Anonymous No.16087932]

>>16084689
What about climate change? Every positive economic aspect of immigration increases carbon emissions and no matter the cultural consequences of immigration, this should already prove how harmful immigration is in the grand scheme of things

[Anonymous No.16088044]

>>16087912
>There's a limited number of low-skilled jobs needed to support the part of your population that is actually a net positive.
What does this mean? Elaborate some. There's obviously a limited amount of work at any time necessary to meet say the calorie intake people need to survive but are you assuming that people have a fixed amount of demand for all services? What do you mean by "solvent"? Do you think the government can run out of money?

>Hispanics and blacks in America are just one giant burden on the white and asian population
Your chart shows the opposite. White people own more financial wealth they need serviced and are more vulnerable to changes in the price level.

[Anonymous No.16088076]

>>16084689
Remember to s&r /lit/lads

[Anonymous No.16088084]

>>16087912
Where's asian?

[Anonymous No.16088088]

>>16084805
Everything is justified in economic terms by these soulless ghouls. It's uneconomic to build anything that's lasts, or that's beautiful. It's uneconomic to leave your old growth forests unharvested. It's uneconomic for social trust to be higher than what's needed for credit cards to work.

[Anonymous No.16088099]

>>16088088
>As long as we only talk about economic classes, profit, salaries, and production, and as long as we believe that real human progress is determined by a particular system of distribution of wealth and goods, then we are not even close to what is essential.

t. Evola

[Anonymous No.16088312]

>>16084689
Yes, open borders and free trade is economically optimal, but still inadvisable for a multitude of reasons

[Anonymous No.16088329]

>>16088044
>Do you think the government can run out of money?
Ah, you're one of those modern monetary theory people who believe you can just print as much money as you need. I believe that ultimately any country is reliant upon the goods and services it produces, not the fictitious units it uses for accounting. Large numbers of low skilled workers in high-skilled service economies are not producing anything of value on the international market, certainly not with minimum wage and guaranteed quality of life benefits.
>Your chart shows the opposite. White people own more financial wealth they need serviced and are more vulnerable to changes in the price level.
lol

[Anonymous No.16088344]

>>16085423
>Would you rather live in San Francisco or New Hampshire?
Is this supposed to be for the basedicon valley audience or something?

[Anonymous No.16088357]

Perhaps some anons would be interested in learning about RBTC?
That is, Routine Biased Technological Change. At the turn of the century academics noticed a worrying shift in labour dynamics that led to job polarization. By studying the types of jobs being eliminated and those being created they came to realise that it is mostly those jobs with large routine task inputs that are being done away with, while occupations with abstract and manual task inputs are growing in size and variety.
At this point it is wise to ponder what type of society we are trending towards. Objectively speaking, one can predict that those who are most capable will assume the well-paid abstract roles, that those are less capable will gravitate towards the numerous poorly-paid routine (service) roles.
In the context of immigration, nation-states should consider a policy of upskilling natives while using temporary workers from abroad to fill out service roles until such a point as these service roles are also able to be routinized away. However, there are three major barriers to such an economically sound policy: 1) not all natives are capable, in the cognitive sense, of assuming complex abstract roles; 2) immigrants, who are often intellectually impaired and most definitely incapable of mass assuming abstract roles, are given citizenship and voting rights (naturally, they will be opposed to a system that must necessarily disenfranchise them); and 3) our modern political religion will never accept the natural hierarchy between natives (in this sense, those of european descent) and those of foreign descent. If there is any doubt in your mind as to the third point, then please refer to any state-mandated policy that seeks to forcefully place ethnics into positions of power to reach some equality with whites.

[Anonymous No.16088370]

>>16087406
In the long term, the increased diversity among the lower classes results in decreased labor bargaining power and ultimately in the shredding of the social safety net. Both are positives for capital.

[Anonymous No.16088377]

>>16084943
This.
Stealing the social capital.

[Anonymous No.16088423]

>>16088357
"Abstract roles" is quite the euphemism. What we're really talking about are sleazy sales and marketing executives. The engineers can be offshored. And as you say, the routine tasks get automated. "Manual task input" providers like massage 'artists' remain. So the future economy will consist of scummy salesmen getting massages from swarthy immigrants. What a utopia.

[Anonymous No.16088440]

>>16084943
>public property is just stolen private property
False, it's the opposite. Private property is just stolen public property. Private property cannot exist without public adjudication and enforcement of private property rights.

[Anonymous No.16088455]

>>16084789
my fucking sides

[Anonymous No.16088653]

>>16088423
Sorry, my mistake in failing to clarify. In the literature, abstract roles refer to occupations that are high in complex 'abstract' tasks i.e. tasks that require a high degree of cognitive ability. Abstract is a euphemism for high-skill. By that definition, sales and marketing executives are indeed complex abstract roles, since what they do cannot easily be broken down into routine task inputs and fed into a computer. On the other hand, there are a great deal of executives that have jobs high in routine-task inputs. One popular critique of such lame occupations is Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber.
Massage artists, along with other lowly service jobs, will indeed form the bulk of employment for low-skill individuals.
The literature postulates that job polarization due to RBTC is trending towards an economy where two types of jobs predominate: high-skill complex abstract roles; and low-skill manual service occupations.

[Anonymous No.16088710]

>>16088653
I know what you meant. I was just being a cynical prick about it.

[Anonymous No.16088749]

bryan caplan, isn't this the guy who suggested we should infect everyone with coronavirus??

[Anonymous No.16088762]

>>16088329
You avoided actually saying anything on solvency. Goods and services are a result of private or public investment. Most people aren't and won't ever be high skilled but could do lots of things if they were paid... but obviously supply doesn't create demand undermining any laissez faire policy and imposed budget constraints means wage deflation is the only way new labour could ever be absorbed but wages generally have an inflationary bias creating a mess.
FYI "high-skilled service economies" depend on capturing rents and enforcing IP globally which means making everyone pay way above costs, if that wasn't enforced rich economies would become a lot more poor... also if there was a guaranteed quality of life it'd just mean you'd have to get using a lot of unused resources.

[Anonymous No.16088776]

>>16084789
Kek

[Anonymous No.16088918]

>>16085143
That "we need social trust to be just high enough for credit cards to work" quote is fucking ghoulish. Who says something like that with a straight face?

[Anonymous No.16088931]

>>16088918
Soulless A*glos and their spiritual (((relatives)))

[Anonymous No.16088942]

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/271814974